Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,711   Posts: 1,548,659   Online: 1137
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    78
    Images
    13
    Thank you for doing that...and if you have a 135mm lens as well, I'm quite curious.
    The issue boils down to this: I have now achieved satisfactory enlarging exposure times with my set-up, having put a ND filter underneath my enlarging lens (B+W glass). Does it make sense to start futzing around with a longer focal length lens, just to deal with "image degradation" that MAY or MAY NOT result from having added glass between the negative and the easel. Frankly, I think I should consider this a "closed case" and move onto the real matter at hand (for all of us?): developing a more artistic eye and being better photograhpers.

  2. #32
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,700
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    I will test a 35mm holder with my 50, 105, 135 and 150 lenses with a meter and one test with paper.

    Even if I am wrong, I have read in Post Exposure that is really is best to use the correct lens for the format because of lens distortion. I would think your extra filter would be no worse than this. Ctein also test the effects of stopping down excessively and found it also was noticeable. So most likely you have the best solution for your situation.

    You could also start using Forte warmtone paper, which tends to be a bit slower. And it sure is a nice paper.

  3. #33
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    The number of times I see the inverse square law invoked with reference to enlargers, I thought they had revised the laws of physics just to spite me... I'll bet a lot more than a piece of paper that the difference will not be more than a percent or two.

    Everyone (mostly) happily uses filters on their camera, including bits of plastic: you chose a high quality B+W filter so I would concur with you: problem solved... unless... Durst do an accessory diffuser for their mixing boxes that cuts the light by about a stop over the standard one, perhaps your enlarger makers have a similar option?

    Cheers, Bob.

  4. #34
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,700
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    Possibly a stupid thought, but how does light get into the mixing box? On the chromega it is just through a small hole in the side. On my Ilford head it is through a hole on each side (one for each lamp). If you were to cover the hole half with aluminum foil it would block the light and be heat safe. This shouldn't effect the distribution, but I would test it just to be sure.
    Last edited by L Gebhardt; 03-30-2005 at 03:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #35
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    The illumination on the easel depends on the amont of light passing through the iris. The same f-stop with a longer lens will have a larher diameter of iris. On some condenser enlargers, the spacing between lamp and lens is variable independently of the focus. The object is to focus the image of the lamp on the plane of the iris. I haven't tried it, but I think that for the same magnification and the same f-stop, there will not be as much difference in illumination as one might think.

    The best place to put a neutral density filter would be between the lamp and the negative carrier, out of focus to both the condenser and the imaging lens. It can be a cheap one, and in fact could be made by exposing and developing a sheet of film.
    Gadget Gainer

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt
    ... with a longer lens. You still are focusing the same
    amount of light coming through the negative into
    the same area.
    With a longer lens the negative to lens distance is increased.
    We all know that with a camera, lens extension is a factor. The
    negative is the source of light and that extended distance with
    the longer lens is there. The lens is focused on the negative
    and on the paper. Lens to paper distance is, of course,
    also greater with the longer lens.

    Now, with all those greater distances, how does your gut feel?

    It all has to do with area and area being a powers of 2
    dependent quantity. Think and think and ... about it. Dan

  7. #37
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    As the focal length of the lens used is increased, the lens to negative distance for a given magnification also increases. Without doing the mathematics it's pointless making conjecture based on a different model.

    As you say, it's about areas. So, for a given light output, over the same area, the intensity reaching the baseboard will be the same (excepting scattering by dust in the air and such like which, unless there is a sandstorm or fog in the darkroom, is unlikely to be a major factor)....

    Anyway: I have just tested it with my exposure meter and 50mm and 150mm lenses - no change (0.1EV resolution meter) between them for the same size footprint on the baseboard (no sandstorms today)....

    Cheers, Bob.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob F.
    Anyway: I have just tested it with my exposure meter and 50mm
    and 150mm lenses - no change (0.1EV resolution meter) between
    them for the same size footprint on the baseboard
    (no sandstorms today)....
    Cheers, Bob.
    All in all I think I left myself a little limb. I was a little shy of 100%
    convinced of my own argument. I've given some thought recently
    to meter calibration using a somewhat point light source. In my
    mind I've rays of light going out in all directions.

    Good intuition on Mr. Gebhardt's part; and his a view contrary
    to at least a few this thread. Dan

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin